Judicial Review

Question 1

Who has authority under const to interpret it?

Answer 1

The Supreme Court has authority to decide cases arising under the Constitution and declare laws unconstitutional when they conflict with the Constitution

Question 2

Original Jdx

Answer 2

SCOTUS has original jurisdiction to cases involving ambassadors, public ministers and consults, and cases in which a State is a party.

Question 3

state action doctrine

Answer 3

Under the State Action Doctrine, the Constitution regulate government actions and does not regulate private parties.

Question 4

Congress cannot

Answer 4

o Expand nor limit SCOTUS or the Federal courts original jdx.
o Eliminate SCOTUS
o Prescribe a rule for the decision of a case in a particular way
o Change a substantive legal rule so it applies to cases that are already res judicata

Question 5

Congress may

Answer 5

o limit or eliminate the appellate jdx of the Federal courts.
o remove cases from SCOTUS.
o Establish or eliminate jdx of lower courts.
o Change rules (either procedural or substantive) during a case and can even take a case out of SCOTUS jdx when that case is being heard

Question 6

Justiciability

Answer 6

For a case to be heard, it must survive all of these doctrines: actual case or controversy, ban on advisory opinions, standing, mootness, ripeness, and political question.

Question 7

Avoidance Principles

Answer 7

Additionally, courts tend to follow some avoidance principles and only void statutes when absolutely necessary

Question 8

Advisory Opinions

Answer 8

There must be an actual dispute between adverse parties whose resolution will have a real effect through res judicata. So, there is a prohibition against advisory opinions

Question 9

Standing Intro

Answer 9

Congress has broad authority to define injuries and chains of causation; however, the Court made clear in Spokeo that there is a constitutional limit to that authority. Even if Congress asks the Court to allow “any individual” to sue, there must still be these four elements:

Question 10

First Element of Standing

Answer 10

An injury must be actual or imminent.

Pro-P: Mass v. EPA

Pro-Def: Lujan

Question 11

Particularized

Answer 11

 An injury is particularized when it affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.

Question 12

Particularized problem in Allen

Answer 12

Injury must be suffered in a direct enough fashion. The person cannot be a concerned bystander upset with how someone else is treated even if they identify with that person.

Question 13

Concrete

Answer 13

An injury is concrete when it is real or “de facto” and not abstract.

Concrete can be tangible or intangible. Even a risk of real harm can satisfy concreteness (Spokeo)

Question 14

Distinguish Mass v. EPA

Answer 14

State may have an even lower bar for injury in fact based on a special concern for state solicitude as in Mass v. EPA.

Question 15

Causation

Answer 15

Causation is satisfied when the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s action. A “but for” cause satisfies causation but it not required.

Question 16

Redressability

Answer 16

A favorable court decision is likely to redress the injury

Question 17

Special Issue in Redressabilitiy

Answer 17

Redressability exists if an agency can be required to review a decision because of a misapplication of the law, even if it still has prosecutorial discretion

Question 18

Generalized Grievance

Answer 18

Generalized grievances are not the kinds of harms that confer standing. Where a large number of Americans suffer alike, the political process rather than the judicial process may provide the more appropriate remedy for a widely shared grievance.

Question 19

“Any individual”

Answer 19

Even if Congress confers standing to “any individual” to cast the standing net broadly, people are still subject to constitutional standing

Question 20

Taxpayer Standing

Answer 20

So long as Flast is good law, the ban on generalized grievances is not a constitutional requirement. A taxpayer may have standing to sue the government if the Flast two prong test is satisfied:

• Challenge is made to an exercise by Congress of its power under taxing and spending clause
• These appropriations violate the establishment clause

Question 21

Third Party Standing

Answer 21

Usually, a party may only assert his own rights. However, if a Plaintiff satisfies the elements of constitutional standing, then they may be able to assert the rights of someone else. These two elements must be satisfied:

• The interests between the third party and the absent party are sufficiently similar
• There is a genuine obstacle to the absent plaintiff bringing the suit

Question 22

Associational Standing

Answer 22

An association may bring a suit on behalf of one of its members if:

• At least one member has standing themselves
• The cause of action is germane to the purpose of the organization
• There are no individualized questions requiring the member to be in court him or herself

Question 23

Ripeness

Answer 23

A federal court will not consider a claim before it has fully developed; to do so would be premature, and any potential injury would be speculative. In order for a case to be ripe for litigation, the plaintiff must have experienced a real injury. These two prongs must be satisfied:

o The issue is fit for judicial review
o There is hardship to the Plaintiff if review is denied

Question 24

Moot

Answer 24

• A Plaintiff must present a live controversy at all stages of litigation. If the Plaintiff’s injury ends, then the case is dismissed as moot.

Question 25

Moot Exceptions

Answer 25

• Capable of repetition but evading review
• Voluntary Cessation
  - The court places a heavy burden on the party asserting mootness to show that it is absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur. –> Failed burden  not moot
• Class Actions
  - A class action sit may continue even if the named Plaintiff’s claims are rendered moot because the member can stand in for the Plaintiff.

Question 26

Policital Question Doctrine

Answer 26

As a separation of powers concern, the court refuses to engage in judicial review if the case or controversy is exclusively a political question. However, political implications may not render a case a political question. A political question is one where:

o There is a clear textual commitment to one of the political branches
o There are no judicially discoverable standards to review
o There is a special need for deference to the political branches

Question 27

Third Prong Political Question Considerations

Answer 27

• Impossible to resolve the matter without expressing lack of respect for another branch
• Unusual need for unquestioning adherence to political decision already made
• Potential of embarrassment if various depts said different answers